Is Einstein the Last Great Genius?

Major breakthroughs in science have historically been the province
of individuals, not institutes. Galileo and Copernicus, Edison and
Einstein, toiling away in lonely labs or pondering the cosmos in
private studies.

But in recent decades — especially since the Soviet success in
launching the Sputnik satellite in 1957 — the trend has been to create
massive institutions that foster more collaboration and garner big
chunks of funding.

And it is harder now to achieve scientific greatness. A study of
Nobel Prize winners in 2005 found that the accumulation of knowledge
over time has forced great minds to toil longer
before they can make breakthroughs. The age at which thinkers produce
significant innovations increased about six years during the 20th
century.

Don't count the individual genius out just yet, however.

A balance between individual and institutional approaches is the
best idea, according to a new theory by a Duke University engineer
Adrian Bejan, who thinks institutions benefit most from the
co-existence of large groups that self-organize naturally and lone
scientists coming up with brilliant new ideas.

"The history of scientific achievement is marked by solitary
investigators, from Archimedes to Newton to Darwin," Bejan points out
in the December issue of the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics.
"Solitary thinkers have flourished throughout history because it is
natural — science is good for the mind of the thinker and for the
well-being of society. Even though the trend is toward the creation of
large research groups, the individual will always flourish."

Yet the very notion of individual genius is somewhat overrated, as even some of the geniuses will attest.

The course of modern research changed abruptly after Oct. 4, 1957,
when the former Soviet Union became the first nation in space by
launching Sputnik, Bejan said. That fueled a dramatic increase in U.S.
funding of large research groups within institutions already known for
their research, he says. This model was adopted by smaller
institutions, which also began forming larger groups to attract
funding.

However, individual big thinkers didn't disappear. Bejan argues they
continued to thrive. He thinks his "constructal theory," which he began
describing in 1996, might explain why.

The theory states that so-called flow systems evolve to balance and
minimize imperfections, reducing friction or other forms of resistance,
so that the least amount of useful energy is lost. Examples in nature
include rivers and streams that make up a delta or the intricate
airways of the lungs.

In research done by humans, Bejan sees two main flows: those of
ideas in the form of scientific findings, and those of support,
measured by tangible factors such as funding and lab space.

"Successful research groups are those that grow and evolve on their
own over time," he says. "For example, an individual comes up with a
good idea, gets funding, and new group begins to form around that good
idea. This creates a framework where many smaller groups contribute to
the whole."

Solitary confinement

Extremes are not conducive to productive science, Bejan thinks.

"If an institution is made up only of solitary researchers, it would
have many ideas but little support," he said. "On the other hand, a
group that is large for the sake of size would have a lot of support,
but would comparatively have fewer ideas per investigator."

This problem was epitomized by the old Soviet-style research, where
the government decreed the goal and scope of research and populated its
monolithic structures with like-minded scientists, Bejan said.

There is no inherent conflict between research empires and the
individual, but rather a balance that serves the greater good, as Bejan
puts it. And so, institutional administrators should go easy on the
individual who shows signs of greatness.

"I would argue that those administrators who coerce their colleagues
into large groups solely to attract more funding, to beef up their
curriculum vitae or to generate more papers, are acting against the
self-organizing nature of the institution and its research," Bejan
said. "Complete coalescence into large groups does not happen and will
not happen."

Bejan's thinking, it should be noted, is supported by funding from the National Science Foundation.

The next Einstein?

Some might argue that the nature of genius is such that it can't be quashed, regardless.

Those who use their minds to great ends are known to work at it. A
35-year study in 2006, which looked at mathematically gifted children
to see what they ended up doing with their lives, revealed the ingredients of a great and productive mind:
cognitive abilities, educational opportunities, interest, and plain old
hard work. Not everyone who starts out smart ends up brilliant.

So when will the next Einstein emerge?

That's a question even an Einstein can't answer. But it's worth
noting that two centuries separated Einstein from Newton, considered by
many his greatest intellectual rival. That means the next Einstein might be a baby now, or perhaps is yet to be born.

This article is from the LiveScience Water Cooler: What people are talking about in the world of science and beyond.

More from LiveScience

Author Bio

Robert Roy Britt

Rob was a writer and editor at Space.com starting in 1999. He served as managing editor of Live Science at its launch in 2004. He is now Chief Content Officer overseeing media properties for the sites’ parent company, Purch. Prior to joining the company, Rob was an editor at The Star-Ledger in New Jersey, and in 1998 he was founder and editor of the science news website ExploreZone. He has a journalism degree from Humboldt State University in California.